[AVT] Summary of the issues of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-00.txt
Stephan Wenger <stewe@cs.tu-berlin.de> Sat, 16 November 2002 19:20 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22876 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:20:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAGJN2A22696 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:23:02 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAGJMDv22675; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:22:13 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAGJETv22504 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:14:29 -0500
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22807 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:11:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from VAIOStW2.cs.tu-berlin.de (stewe@marilyn.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.16.17]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06284 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:13:10 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021116194308.02b70c00@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
X-Sender: stewe@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:12:42 +0100
To: avt@ietf.org
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [AVT] Summary of the issues of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-00.txt
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Folks, below the summary of the issues I want to see discussed in Atlanta. Slides will follow on Monday the latest (will be on travel until then, but probably have Email connections before). 1. Status The draft is a renamed, slightly extended and cleaned up version of draft-wenger-avt-rtp-jvt-01. Important sections such as the MIME considerations are still missing and will be added later. We do not plan to go for last call until H.264 is ratified, which may be the case in January, but could also take a longer time, depending on a number of issues that need to be resolved within JVT. The draft is currently aligned with the most up-to-date editor's working draft, with the exception of a number of typos in the NAL unit numbering. 2. Open issues There are two open issues that require discussions. The first is about the timestamp offsets in the packet aggregation scheme. Do the timestamp offsets of 8 bit and 32 bit make sense in a 90 kHz environment? Probably not, considering that H.264 ha a maximum frame rate of 180 fps. Hence we propose to remove them, until someone shows us a useful application for these two offsets. Secondly, there is the partly technical, and partly political issue of the alignment of the H.264 packetization with the MPEG-4 Simple packetization. H.264 will not only be published by the ITU-T, but also as Part 10 of ISO/IEC 14496, commonly known as MPEG-4. We hear requests from some individuals active in the MPEG systems group that they would NOT like to see an independent packetization scheme for H.264 at all -- they consider it as part of the MPEG-4 framework and would prefer an MPEG-4 packetization scheme as the only way to deal with this media type. Others would accept an H.264 packetization if there is a common operation point between the MPEG-4 simple draft packetization and a scheme like the draft under discussion. On the ITU side, many individuals including the authors of this draft voice a strong demand for a packetization scheme that is done specifically for H.264 (particularly when it comes to MIME type registrations), but a binary compatibility would be acceptable as long as it does not limit the functionality too severely. So far, the authors believed that we have achieved the compromise of binary compatibility to a certain extent, but private conversations lead us to a feeling that this may not be the case. Hopefully, the whole issue can be resolved easily by technically aligning the two drafts in question. If this is not feasible, then we would like to hear guidance from ietf/avt, as the only responsible standardization group, on how to proceed with the H.264 packetization in general. 3. Editorial suggestions We got a number of comments, both on the mailing list and in private, on necessary editorial work. There are a few small issues that we may want to address if there is time left. Slides will be prepared, however, considering the complexity of issue #2, likely never presented. See you all in Atlanta, Stephan _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] Summary of the issues of draft-ietf-avt-rtp… Stephan Wenger